creepypastafandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Lavecki
EmpyrealInvective (talk) 13:00, August 25, 2017 (UTC) Re: Story Hey man, read through the required material before getting here. Just curious so I can improve. You recently deleted my story "Bison" for not meeting quality standards. I read through the quality standards pretty thoroughly so I am just wondering if you can expand upon this. Thanks, Kindly, Lavecki (talk) 18:45, August 25, 2017 (UTC)Lavecki : There were a few mechanical errors, but the largest problem was in the story itself. Punctuation issues: "We didn’t raise animals or anything(comma missing) just grew some vegetables" Commas/colons missing before dialogue introduction. "I remember her looking a bit worried, but she just smiled and said(,/:) “Sure honey.”" : Redundancy: Try to avoid repeating words multiple times in the same sentence/paragraph as it can come off as repetitive. "Sometimes people would come and adopt them but sometimes they just ran away.", "If we had a decent enough harvest though my mother would trade with the nearby farms to get some though", etc. : Story: The largest problem lies in the story's execution. I'm assuming the twist is that the mother was serving the daughter dog meat and calling it bison meat. ("We had anywhere from five to twenty dogs at a time. Sometimes people would come and adopt them but sometimes they just ran away.") The biggest issue is that there really feels like there's no reasoning to the mother serving the daughter the meat (especially since the mother seems so broken up about it: "it didn’t taste right. I looked up at my mother to ask if hers was alright. She looked at me, and started to cry."). It just seems like you're trying to shoe-horn this twist in, but it doesn't really work as there's no build-upon explanation as to why the mother is so desperate to serve meat. : Story issues cont.: Another issue is that this premise has been delved into before in a manner that was a bit more effective. The story (as far as I can remember it) was about a couple of people stranded on an island after a ship/plane wreck kills a majority of the crew and washes them up on shore and how they were starving due to their inability to hunt/forage. Eventually someone starts fishing and catching some sort of marine life that allows people to survive. Years later after being rescued, the protagonist orders the meal with the marine life they had subsisted on when they were stranded and they're horrified to learn it tastes nothing like that (implying that the person was butchering the drowned crew to feed the others). I'm trying to remember the title so I can link it here, but unfortunately I'm drawing a bit of a blank. : Unfortunately, your story doesn't really have a good basis for the characters' actions which ends up unraveling the plot quite a bit. Why does the mother first decide to serve dog meat to the daughter? There's no real implication that the daughter is malnourished and needs protein or that she's demanding meat of any sort so the mother's choice just feels random. Her tears at the end imply that it wasn't done out of maliciousness. In the end, it just feels like this story could have used a lot more troubleshooting and working out wrinkles in the plot. I'd suggest using the writer's workshop (link above) for your next story as there weren't too many mechanical issues here, but the plot really could have used quite a bit of revision. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 19:33, August 25, 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback on this. The story you are thinking of is actually a riddle about a man who orders a food and kills himself after taking one bite. linked here. And I will admit it was a bit of the inspiration for it. I can see what you mean by the little errors of redundancy and the gramatical errors. I will disagree with you a little bit about the ending being shoehorned in as I had established that they were poor and built up that they didnt get much in the way of meat (which protein is necessary to survive) but I will agree that I can do more to improve upon the set up. That said, it seems like you guys are having more stringancy given to current stories rather than older stuff that is currently on the wiki, I am not saying this as an attack or anything but I am just curious as to why this is? I assume its just easier to stop more incomming than to clear out old items. Either way thanks for the feedback. ::::"I will disagree with you a little bit about the ending being shoehorned in as I had established that they were poor and built up that they didnt get much in the way of meat (which protein is necessary to survive) but I will agree that I can do more to improve upon the set up." I'm sorry, but that feels like a bit of a stretch (especially when there are other means to getting protein like rice and beans). It just really doesn't justify the end and it makes the mother's choice to prepare dog meat seem random (especially with lines like: "we pretty much grew enough to sustain ourselves and a little extra for trade." implying that they could have traded for meat on special occasions anyways) given that there are likely dozens of other farmers in the same vicinity who are getting by without eating dogs. ::::As for stringency, it's been a bit of tackling both incoming stories and older ones at the same time. We're trying to cut back on stories that rehash plot points (OC-proxy stories, Deep Web Exploration, Haunted Video Games, etc.) as most are just repeating older stories (we had a Smilecat.exe for a while) while cleaning out older stories that fail to meet our current standards (like Jeff the Killer, Clockwork, YouChan, Laughing Jack, etc., etc., etc.). EmpyrealInvective (talk) 19:57, August 25, 2017 (UTC) ::::: "I'm sorry, but that feels like a bit of a stretch" - It seems like you are under the impression that children know everything about their parents finances. The character is an unreliable narrator. Saying things like "we pretty much grew enough to sustain ourselves and a little extra for trade." Is something the narrator is assuming as a child. Additionally the mother is trying to put food on the table for her child, if one year the crop wasnt as good the mother probably isn't going to tell the child that and make sure that they never notice, even if she isnt eating as much. Like I said, I can do more to show this but it definitly isn't a stretch or something that is shoehorned in. ::::::I'm sorry but without the proper focus and build-up, this really does feel extremely implausible. The protagonist mentions the financial situation themselves and since they live on the farm during this time and don't really give the impression that the family is starving for food or hard-up for cash it does feel forced. Additionally, families with children growing up in poverty do have a tendency to be more keyed-in to their parents' financial stresses. Without making reference to a hard harvest or tough financial times (through their perspective like Christmas, a birthday, or basic amenities), it does feel incredibly farfetched that the mom would butcher a dog and serve it to that child (for multiple years). EmpyrealInvective (talk) 20:58, August 25, 2017 (UTC) :: Creator's Cut! Hey, I think one of the other members gave you the link to the longer "uncut" version of my JtK remake, but I figured I'd reach out to you as well. The original pre-edited version can be found here: JtK Creator's Cut I look forward to your thoughts on it, as your review of Scars of Corruption was very indepth and enjoyable. Additionally I wanted to take a moment to thank you for that review. Although the final score was low, I still appreciate the time and effort that you put into giving me real, honest and useful feedback. In a world full of folks that will leave short snippets of opinion, yours stands out as an example of how a proper review should look. On that note, I invite you to look over my current library of stories that can be found on my profile page for this site. All of my stories are linked, and I'd love to see your thoughts on some of my non-JtK titles (which are pretty much all of them.) Again, lots of thanks for your time and I look forward to more of your reviews in the future. If you're feeling particularly ambitious, I'd challenge you to read my entire Tobit series, which is condensed here: Hyraaq Tobit: The Complete Collection Best, --K. Banning Kellum (talk) 23:56, September 18, 2017 (UTC) RE: Talk Hey Lavecki. I'm afraid as a non-English speaker it would be hard for me to express my views on live chat, so I would prefer something like e-mail, or another texting up that is more slow-paced (maybe Discord, Google Hangout Chat, etc.). Is that OK? MrDupin (talk) 16:15, September 20, 2017 (UTC) EmpyrealInvective (talk) 18:13, October 10, 2017 (UTC) Hello, I am requesting that this story be reinstated. It is a six story pasta that was removed for "not being sinister enough" and "being too vague". I dont know why these are requirements but they are not part of the quality standards for this site. The story can be interpreted multiple ways but it has enough detail to be interpreted in a way that is sinister. There is no reason for this story to have been removed. Thank you, Lavecki (talk) 18:24, October 10, 2017 (UTC)Lavecki :I'm sorry, but your story does not work effectively. Much like writing: "I was in my house this morning and I heard a noise." that could be used to infer something sinister or horror related, but in the end it doesn't do a good job using its limited number of words effectively. The original you were mimicking works because you are able to infer what that means and reach your own conclusion with the evidence given (Baby shoes are for sale, they were never worn. This could imply miscarriage, an infertile couple giving up, etc.). Yours is incredibly vague and could be taken to mean anything as there is no real effort to imply something horror-related has happened (a carpet is for sale, it's been cleaned. This could imply there was a brutal murder on it, it could imply that the owner wants a new carpet, it could mean that his pets soiled it and he doesn't want it around anymore. It's way too vague to be effective.) You could easily argue that the owner is selling the carpet for a number of reasons that have no horror implications. Another admin is free to weigh in, but I really don't think this is effectively written. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 18:35, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :Since I was also part of the deletion, I want to clarify some things on top of what Emp said. Your story was not deleted because it was "not sinister enough". The reason was that the story is not clearly sinister. When I read it, what I immediately thought was that a guy has a carpet up for sale, one that he cleaned. The sinister interpretation settled in later. That is the biggest obstacle writers of such short fiction face. Getting the disturbing interpretation in first. ::The reason why the "baby shoes" story works is because it is instantly clear what happened. A couple bought shoes for an expected baby, but the baby never made it. It is clear, disturbing and, ultimately, hard-hitting. ::It is very difficult to pull a story like this off. There is a reason why the "baby shoes" story is so well known. I'm afraid your story didn't meet the Quality Standards. MrDupin (talk) 19:15, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :::Looks like I got cut off because of your response Dupin, but I thank you for your response. What I was typing when you responded however was this: :::The story does work. You have allowed yourself to interpret it a different way, but even so Dupin, you were able to figure out what I wanted to imply eventually. The story you both are refferencing "For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn" is something that you are both, also, interpreting to mean something, much in the same way my story gets interpreted. The difference is that you have decided to interpret Baby Shoes as being sinister, where as my story you have decided not. The only thing we know about Baby Shoes is that A) there are baby shoes for sale and B) that they were never worn. The most common interpretation is that the couple lost the child or some facet there of. However, this can also be interpreted that the shoes are the wrong color, they were too small, they were too big, they were a gift but they already had shoes and didn't need them, these are the last shoes for a store going out of business. It's all about how you intperpret it. My story may not be as famous as Baby Shoes, but it has all the same context for you to figure out what I am trying to convey. I made sure to pick my words carefully as I only had six of them to work with. There is a reason my story is "New Carpet" and not "Carpet", there is little reason to have to clean a new carpet. Sure anything you said could be applied to my story, but by saying that you are also agreeing that anything I said can be applied to Baby Shoes. This story should not be taken down because you interpreted it in a different way than others might. :::Thank you, Lavecki ::::Hey Lavecki. I'm afraid in such short stories, first impressions are key and the first impression we get from your story is a tame one. It is very rare for micro-pastas to be good when the first impression is lacking. ::::I'm sorry, but this appeal has been denied. Best of luck in your future writing endeavors! MrDupin(talk) 19:44, October 10, 2017 (UTC) :::::Seriously? Because two people interpret a story one way the first read I am not allowed to have my story here? Please clarify if that's not the case because that is EXACTLY what you are saying. There is no reason for this. First impressions are not key in any micro fiction. Multiple reads are almost always necessary. Even Baby Shoes requires multiple reads. Not everyone gets it the first time around. Lavecki Once again, you seem to be misinterpreting what we are saying. First and foremost, "Baby Shoes" is not in fact a horror story. ("The difference is that you have decided to interpret Baby Shoes as being sinister, where as my story you have decided not."). It is trying to tell a story in as few words as possible. If it were considered a horror story, it would fail at effectively conveying what the author is trying to relay as its multiple interpretations could range from the tragic to the mundane. Your story IS attempting to be a horror story and its vagueness and failure to effectively use its limited wording results in a story that fails to meet our standards. This appeal has been turned down, feel free to discuss it on either of out talk pages, but please do not clutter the appeal by viewing this as a subjective matter when in reality, given the points listed above, we are trying to be objective and pointing out that your story can be interpreted in multiple ways due to its nebulous writing which weakens the point you are trying to make with your story. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 20:31, October 10, 2017 (UTC) Moved the conversation here to not clutter the deletion appeal section. Can you please point to where in the quality standards the section I have violated is. I understand my story can be nebulous, but there isn't anything in there about nebulous writing or about writing things that the reader might not understand. Thank you, Lavecki (talk) 17:52, October 11, 2017 (UTC)Lavecki Re: Appeal If you re-write a story that's previously been deleted, it does need to go through the deletion appeal or have an admin's approval. I would also recommend following the header there and using the writer's workshop as a final proof-reading/feedback method to try and smooth out any possible issues before submitting it for review. Best of luck. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 15:45, October 24, 2017 (UTC)